#national marine fisheries service | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

jordanas-diary · 3 years

Text

Seaspiracy

This documentary seems to be the talk of the time at the moment and I have to say that initially, I was super excited to see issues that I have been studying for the last four years, being brought to the forefront of people’s minds after having banged on about them for who knows how long. But boy oh boy was I disappointed in how the issues were being portrayed. Where to begin?

The first thing that frustrates me with this is the science/data/information these people are using. Or the lack of it. Sure it has sources for some of the data being used, but not once do I see the utilisation of a credible science journal with peer-reviewed articles. Nor do I see a lot of scientists providing input on the questions they are posing to ocean conservation organisations. With some googling, you will find a lot of the data isn’t backed up by scientists working in these areas of study in reports or in articles - so what’s the truth? The graphics in this documentary too ... a great white shark on coral reefs? Un-fucking-likely. Two heccing ridiculous claims were made in this documentary: 1. Dolphins are only killed bc they're pests; and 2. Ebola was caused by decreased fish stocks????? I will elaborate on these later. But anyways ...

This brings me to my next issue - the demonisation of ocean conservation organisations. Somehow BP oil came out looking like a good guy in comparison to these organisations. How in the world did that happen? These organisations provide funding for ocean conservation, research, clean up and education - if we stop funding these organisations, how can we continue to learn about the ocean and educate our younger generations?

What's more is the interview tactics used were shady as hell, and just aiming to paint the narrative they wanted. Now I was ok with this in the beginning, but the less they tried to paint a more balanced picture of the industry, the more frustrated I became. The narrative they were aiming for will have some detrimental impacts on these organisations as mentioned above.

Furthermore, this documentary is incredibly white-centric. Sure there are problematic practices across the world, but painting Asia as the worst? Have you ever wondered why? One of the key drivers for unsustainable fishing practices is the demand - but this demand is not only domestic, but international as well. Now, where internationally is the demand coming from? The West. It is our demand for more and more seafood, drives for the supply to become higher and higher CAUSING these businesses and countries to find more seafood in order to turn a profit.

I also had an issue with the spread and demographic of people contributing throughout the documentary. All of these people were white/white-passing, mostly male, majority activists/journalists, all bringing exceptionally similar perspectives and ideas as to what they see as the ideal future. But without diversity of thought - how can we create a truly encompassing and servicing society for all?

Back I will return to the "dolphins are pests" claim. This i n f u r i a t e d me to the absolute max. Why? Because not once did these people even THINK to acknowledge or even explore indigenous practices in the marine environment, or the significance these animals hold to these people culturally. Which then brings me to the intent of the documentary.

This documentary was not created to explore sustainable modes of fishing - or even the idea of it for that matter - but to stop the consumption of fish. There are so many issues in this. I mean to unpack this from a science perspective - the lack of scientific backing of the majority of the claims this documentary made is laughable - but to go and completely disregard years of research and experiments and exploration is just plain ignorant. Why only tell one side of this complex issue? Where is the balance between science, governments and protection organisations? Heavily weighting this documentary to the side creates the misinformation that has scientists pressed from the get go fam. Science and technology have evolved [and will continue to evolve] to help us better understand fish stocks and populations, as well and feeding and breeding patterns. Genetics can be used to understand where fish are coming from and whether or not their capture was legal or not, making it harder for fishing vessels to lie about where and how stocks were caught. New Zealand is a good place to look at when exploring sustainable fisheries if you are interested in what this might look like.

AND THEN from a cultural and social perspective - well if all fishing is banned then how do we put millions, if not billions of people into jobs to feed, clothe and house their families? What assistance will be given to these people from governments or international institutions? My guess? Very little. Most fisherman probably get paid dirt nothing and have skills for a specialised field - how can we ask them to go out and retrain? They most likely will not have the finds to do so. Many of these people will live in vulnerable communities, lacking infrastructure and opportunity to provide them with jobs if the fishing industry was to just ... stop. The expectation that Asian nations that make up a lot of international seafood trade will immediately have the capacity to if not give jobs, but provide assistance to millions of people without jobs and their families is so unrealistic that even on an international level this would be a huge ask.

THEN we come to the question of what happens to indigenous people, coastal communities and island nations that literally r e l y on the ocean for everything? If we ask these people to stop relying on the ocean, not only will they lose their source of income and sustenance, but also lose their cultural practices and knowledge of the ocean that they can no longer pass on through action. Indigenous peoples and coastal communities have such a different relationship with the environment and the ocean, it is hard to comprehend let alone explain if you do not possess this. There is an inherent as well as learned intuition that is passed down between generations where you learn the right times of the year to harvest through the. understanding of the lifecycle and breeding patters, without specific scientific knowledge have the ability to know the difference between mature and juvenile species, and so much more. The knowledge that these people hold is integral to the survival of our oceans, yet not once was this mentioned throughout the documentary.

Urging people to stop eating fish is incredibly ignorant. Some people many not be in a position to - whether that be culturally, socially, for health reasons - whatever. Sure reduce consumption, find an alternative if you have the ability and means to do so. Don’t do it just because a documentary told you to. The reason why a lot of organisations made no comment on this is because people deserve the right to choice of what they seat - and in some cases, seafood might be their main source of protein and energy.

What this documentary did do right though, is raise all of these issues by bringing them to the front of public mind. Ghost fishing, overfishing, shark finning - all of these practices take an absolute toll on our oceans - without halting these specific practices, I cannot see how our oceans can survive, let alone sustain the human race.

For me, Seaspiracy comes from a place of privilege and stubbornness. There is very little attempt to better educate themselves on these issues, lack of will/want to learn about cultural aspects in fisheries, and the spread of misinformation through data and “facts”. If this documentary has made some how emotionally charged you to do something to protect our oceans - WOOO!!! This issue has been so underrated for far too long. However, do not take this documentary as gospel - go and do some of your own research! Explore the topics raised! Educate yourself! Critically analyse every piece of information you come across, check if it can be backed/verified by other articles/reports released on the same/similar topics!

Happy to answer any questions people might have on this. Hopefully this sheds more light on our ocean issues and that people think more critically about this documentary before, during and after watching it.

Tagging: @lightacademiasworld

70 notes · View notes

biodiversityday · 8 years

Text

ACHIEVING THE AICHI BIODIVERSITY TARGETS THROUGH INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT.

The ASEAN Biodiversity Outlook (ABO) confirms that the region failed to meet the target of significantly reducing biodiversity loss by 2010. Natural wealth continues to degrade at a relatively high rate, with loss of 26.46% of mangroves in Southeast Asia and 33.40% in East Asia from 1980 to 2005, or an annual change rate of 1.06% and 1.34% respectively (FAO, 2007). Coral reefs and seagrasses are also experiencing increased threats through habitat change, sea level rise and other impacts of climate change, over-exploitation and pollution. The Protected Areas Gap Analysis in ASEAN region (ACB, 2010), reports severe under-representation of marine habitats and ecosystems and absence of protection of 78%, or more than 6 million hectares, of the 82 identified marine Key Biodiversity Areas (mKBAs). For those protected mKBAs, management concerns remain an issue. Despite the increase in the proportion of MPA areas within the territorial waters of some countries, there have been notable declines in the quality and quantity of mangrove, seagrass and coral reef habitats within these MPAs. As a consequence, the population, health and resiliency of many threatened species, such as the Chinese White Dolphin, remain a matter of concern.

Although some coastal areas with sustained integrated management efforts have shown signs of environmental improvements, many threats to protecting and sustaining coastal and marine ecosystem services persist across the region, including:

Land use transformation in coastal and upland areas

Land reclamation in coastal and wetland areas

Deforestation, erosion and sedimentation

Degradation, destruction and over-exploitation of natural resources, including fisheries

Continued trade in wildlife and endangered species

Increasing populations and economic activities in coastal areas

Conflicting uses and demands among users for limited coastal and marine resources, such as tourism, port development/marine transportation and fisheries

Inequitable access to resources, resulting in food security and sustainable livelihood concerns, especially among fishing communities

Marine pollution from land-based and sea-based sources

Climate variation and change including extreme weather events.

The root causes for these continuing threats can be traced to one or more of the following:

Lack of national policies on coasts and oceans and outdated national policies that conflict with the objectives of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development of coastal and marine resources

Inadequate institutional mechanisms to facilitate coordination across communities, sectors, local and national governments, and their respective agencies and boundaries

Inadequate legislation and the capacity to enforce regulations

Insufficient mechanisms and incentives to engage local governments and the business sector in conservation investments

Limited access to training and capacity building opportunities to build up human and financial capital to effectively manage protected areas

Inadequate resources and capacity for scientifically sound environmental monitoring and reporting, coupled with lack of coordination of environmental monitoring efforts across agencies, programs and projects

Inadequate funding for applied research on social and economic values of coastal and marine ecosystems and their contributions to sustainable development and security

Limited knowledge or awareness of the value of coastal ecosystems services and the consequences of their degradation or loss

Limited knowledge sharing on best practices and case studies within countries and across the region

Limited buy-in by local governments and local stakeholders on the benefits of MPAs. In the face of complex threats to the globally important marine and coastal biodiversity in the East and Southeast Asia region, this project seeks to add value by applying a systematic approach to strengthening the management effectiveness of MPAs under a variety of political, social, economic and environmental conditions to implement the SDS-SEA.

The project will demonstrate the use of a conservation-focused integrated coastal management (ICM) framework and process to support and strengthen actions identified in national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs). On-the-ground conservation actions will not only factor in the capacities and priorities of local communities, but also take into account critical issues such as climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, food security, alternative livelihoods and pollution reduction, and incorporate these into the development plans of local governments.

ACHIEVING THE AICHI BIODIVERSITY TARGETS THROUGH INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT.

#National biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs)#biodiversity conservation #biodiversity #coastal areas #Integrated coastal management (ICM)#ASEAN Biodiversity Outlook (ABO)#Marine Habitat #brunei darussalam #AICHI Targets #Projects #Marine Key Biodiversity Areas (mKBAs).

3 notes · View notes

noaasanctuaries · 3 years

Text

Listening to the Ocean in the Time of COVID-19

Read the full story at https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/news/mar21/listening-during-quarantine.html

Like students, office personnel, and late-night TV hosts, scientists are navigating the new world of remote work. Despite closed laboratories and cancelled research expeditions, acoustic science at Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary continues in the time of COVID-19. Insights garnered, techniques perfected, and lessons learned during these challenging times have helped to advance science and will likely change the ways some research is done in the future.

Recently, near real-time detections of North Atlantic right whale upcalls (a distinctive vocalization) in the sanctuary led to the designation of a Right Whale Slow Zone. This conservation action by NOAA, which recommends ships reduce speeds to less than 10 knots, was accomplished without any human presence on the water.

Although the acoustic monitoring equipment is designed to operate remotely, the glider still needs to be deployed and retrieved at the beginning and end of its programmed path, and the recording units in the stationary, anchored buoys need to be serviced and storage media swapped out.

“The beauty of these systems is that the work can be done with a minimal crew on a small boat,“ says Dr. Timothy Rowell, a primary operational and analytical lead for SanctSound, based at NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center. “It still takes a village to do this science, but this technology plays its role gathering information for us remotely, serving as our ears when we can’t be there ourselves.”

Read the full story at https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/news/mar21/listening-during-quarantine.html

#SanctSound #Sound #Soundscapes #spectogram #research #science #ocean #ocean science #Oceanography #whales #fish #acoustic #massachusetts #Cape Cod #endangered species #noaa

44 notes · View notes

csnews · 3 years

Photo

What’s Killing Killer Whales? Pathology Reports on More Than 50 Killer Whales in the Northeast Pacific and Hawaii

University of California, Davis - December 2, 2020

Pathology reports on more than 50 killer whales stranded over nearly a decade in the northeast Pacific and Hawaii show that orcas face a variety of mortal threats — many stemming from human interactions.

A study analyzing the reports was published today (Dec. 2) in the journal PLOS ONE. The study findings indicate that understanding and being aware of each threat is critical for managing and conserving killer whale populations. It also presents a baseline understanding of orca health.

The study was conducted by a team of marine mammal specialists led by a veterinary pathologist with the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and coordinated through SeaDoc Society, a Washington-based program of the University of California, Davis’ School of Veterinary Medicine. The study received guidance and support from Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the United States’ NOAA Fisheries, the two federal agencies that manage this species.

The whales include those from healthy populations as well as endangered species, such as the southern resident whales regularly sighted off the coasts of British Columbia, Washington and Oregon.

Of 52 whales stranded between 2004 and 2013, causes of death were determined for 42 percent. For example, one calf died from sepsis following a halibut hook injury. Another starved from a congenital facial deformity. Two whales died from the blunt force trauma of vessel strikes. Additional causes of death include infectious disease and nutritional deficiencies.

‘We Can Do Better’

Despite there being no singular common cause of death, the study found a common theme: Human-caused deaths occurred in every age class — from juveniles to subadults and adults.

“Nobody likes to think we’re directly harming animals,” said SeaDoc Society Director Joe Gaydos, a wildlife veterinarian with the Karen C. Drayer Wildlife Health Center in the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. “But it’s important to realize that we’re not just indirectly hurting them from things like lack of salmon, vessel disturbance or legacy toxins. It’s also vessel strikes and fish hooks. That humans are directly killing killer whales across all age classes is significant; it says we can do a better job.”

Gaydos and lead author Stephen Raverty, a veterinary pathologist with the BC Ministry of Agriculture, co-developed a standardized killer whale necropsy protocol in 2004. Revised in 2014 with help from Judy St. Leger, a pathologist working for SeaWorld, this guide helped improve examinations of deceased whales.

“The results from systematic necropsies of dead killer whales in this review is unique and will establish critical baseline information to assess future mitigation efforts,” Raverty said. “This work contributes to a better understanding of the impacts that ongoing human activities and environmental events have on killer whales.”

The authors acknowledge the report is an incomplete picture of orca health and mortality. Necropsies can only be performed on whales found in an adequate state to receive them, and even then, the cause of death cannot always be determined. But the report offers one of the most comprehensive looks yet at the multitude of human and environmental threats affecting killer whales and can help inform strategies to better protect them.

Reference: “Pathology findings and correlation with body condition index in stranded killer whales (Orcinus orca) in the northeastern Pacific and Hawaii from 2004 to 2013″ by Stephen Raverty, Judy St. Leger, Dawn P. Noren, Kathy Burek Huntington, David S. Rotstein, Frances M. D. Gulland, John K. B. Ford, M. Bradley Hanson, Dyanna M. Lambourn, Jessie Huggins, Martha A. Delaney, Lisa Spaven, Teri Rowles, Lynne Barre, Paul Cottrell, Graeme Ellis, Tracey Goldstein, Karen Terio, Debbie Duffield, Jim Rice and Joseph K. Gaydos, 2 December 2020, PLOS ONE. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242505

Additional coauthors include scientists from a wide range of institutions including Cornell University, NOAA Fisheries, Alaska Veterinary Pathology Services, Marine Mammal Pathology Service in Maryland, UC Davis One Health Institute, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Cascadia Research Collective, University of Illinois-Brookfield, Portland State University, and Oregon State University.

Funding was provided by NOAA Fisheries and multiple grants from the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program. Additional support came from Fisheries and Oceans, Canada; Vancouver Aquarium Research Program; SeaDoc Society; SeaWorld; Animal Health Center of the BC Ministry of Agriculture; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; and numerous First Nations, Alaska Native, and Inuit communities.

#news #wild #death #research #cetacean #whale #dolphin #orca #killer whale #srkw #conservation

52 notes · View notes

rjzimmerman · 4 years

Link

Excerpt from this story from NBC Los Angeles:

An environmental group Monday announced that it may sue the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Coast Guard to protect endangered whales and sea turtles from being struck by ships accessing the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

The Center for Biological Diversity, which has an office in Los Angeles, alleges that the government agencies are ignoring the requirements of the Endangered Species Act in agency consultations, studies and actions such as speed limits in shipping lanes or protecting critical habitat areas.

"Ship strikes kill far too many endangered whales off California's coast, and the Trump administration can't keep ignoring a deadly threat that's only getting worse,'' said Brian Segee, an attorney at the center. "We want good science to determine how shipping lanes are placed and managed. Ships simply don't need to kill as many whales and sea turtles as they do.''

Ship strikes kill far too many endangered whales off California's coast, and the Trump administration can't keep ignoring a deadly threat that's only getting worse.

Ship strikes are a leading cause of death and injuries to whales migrating along California's coast and are more lethal than previously understood, the center said. The group is calling for the Fisheries Service to update biological surveys of endangered blue whales, fin whales, humpback whales and leatherback sea turtles and better protect them from harm.

At least 10 whales were killed by ship strikes in California in 2018, including a fin whale draped across the bow of a container ship as it entered San Francisco Bay. Federal records blame ship strikes for 88 dead whales in the state since 2006.

#National Marine Fisheries Service #US Coast Guard #whales #sea turtles #shipping #Endangered Species Act

5 notes · View notes

thegrandimago · 3 years

Text

Scientists caution high death rate is outpacing births

Population of whales estimated at around 360

North Atlantic right whales gave birth over the winter in greater numbers than scientists have seen since 2015, an encouraging sign for researchers who became alarmed three years ago when the critically endangered species produced no known offspring at all.

Survey teams spotted 17 newborn calves swimming with their mothers between Florida and North Carolina from December through March. One calf died after being hit a boat, a reminder of a death rate experts fear is outpacing births.

The calf-count equals the combined total for the previous three years. In a dismal 2018, scientists saw no births for the first time in three decades. Still, researchers say greater numbers are needed. The population of the endangered marine giants is estimated to have fallen to about 360.

“What we are seeing is what we hope will be the beginning of an upward climb in calving that’s going to continue for the next few years,” said Clay George, who oversees right whale surveys for the Georgia state government. “They need to be producing about two dozen calves per year for the population to stabilize and continue to grow.”

Right whales migrate each winter to waters off the south-eastern US. Spotters fly over the coastline during calving season, scanning the water for mothers with newborns.

Flights over Georgia and Florida ended on Wednesday, the last day of March, typically the season’s end. Spotters will monitor waters off the Carolinas through 15 April, hoping to pick up overlooked newborns as the whales head north.

This season’s calf count matches 17 births recorded in 2015. The record is 39, confirmed in 2009. Scientists suspect a calving slump may have been caused by a shortage of zooplankton in the Gulf of Maine and the Bay of Fundy. They say the increase in births could be a result of whales being healthier after shifting to waters with more abundant food sources.

“It’s a somewhat hopeful sign that they are starting to adjust to this new regime where females are in good enough condition to give birth,” said Philip Hamilton, a researcher at the New England Aquarium in Boston.

Regardless, conservationists worry that right whales are dying, largely from manmade causes, at a faster rate than they can reproduce. Since 2017, scientists have confirmed 34 right whale deaths in US and Canadian waters, with the leading causes being entanglement in fishing gear and collisions with boats and ships.

Considering whales were documented in the same period with serious injuries, researchers fear the real death toll could be at least 49. Thirty nine births have been recorded since 2017.

“If we reduced or eliminated the human-caused death rate, their birth rate would be fine,” Hamilton said. “The onus should not be on them to reproduce at a rate that can sustain the rate at which we kill them. The onus should be in us to stop killing.”

youtube

The US federal government is expected to finalize new rules aimed at decreasing the number of right whales tangled up in fishing gear used to catch lobster and crabs. Proposals to reduce vertical fishing lines and modify seasonal restricted areas have met with heated debate. Fishermen say the rules could put them out of businesses. Conservation groups insist they aren’t strict enough.

The National Marine Fisheries Service received more than 170,000 public comments on the proposed rules after a report was issued on 31 December, said agency spokeswoman Allison Garrett. She said final rules should be published this summer.

Garrett said the fisheries service is also considering adjustments to federal rules that since 2008 have imposed speed limits on larger vessels in certain Atlantic waters during periods when right whales are frequently seen. A report in January found mariners’ compliance with the speed rules had improved but still lagged below 25% for large commercial vessels at four ports in the south-east.

“We’ve long known from the survival estimates that more right whales are dying than those we see,” said George, the whale survey coordinator for Georgia. “They need to be producing a lot more calves. But the big issue is we’ve got to significantly reduce the number than are being entangled in fishing ropes and struck by boats.”

#science #nature #animals #biodiversity #conservation #environment #wildlife #whales #cetaceans #endangered #endangered species #oceans #north atlantic right whales #baleen whale #mammals #marine mammals #marine biology #calving #aquatic life

6 notes · View notes

howwelldoyouknowyourmoon · 3 years

Text

Sun Myung Moon’s fish business had plans to corner the shark fin trade

▲ Sharks that died after their fins were cut off.

Moonies Fishing Shows Little or No Profit—So Where Do They Get Their Money?

by Tim Sullivan (National Fisherman, September 1981 or a few years later)

Are the “Moonies” trying to take over the United States fishing industry, and are they succeeding? After following the activities of Sun Myung Moon and his Unification Church and related businesses for the past five years, these are two of the questions I am most frequently asked. My answers, most simply, are yes and no.

The Plans Going back to the beginning of Moon’s involvement with the industry in 1976, the record is quite clear: the Korean industrialist/evangelist would like very much to exploit the profit potentials of the fisheries. Outwardly, this intent came in an announcement from Stephen Baker, an advertising agent who had just completed a job of promoting Moon’s God Bless America Festival in Washington, D.C. In September 1976, Baker told The New York Times that Moon had purchased a fleet of seven trawlers and a fleet of trucks and “is going to make fish a staple” in the country. Baker said that with his advertising help, “We’ll make fish another Perdue chicken.” Later, he described this announcement as “premature,” which was partially accurate. There were, in fact, no trawlers and no fleet of trucks. Moon’s yacht New Hope and speedboat Flying Phoenix were making some waves in the New England rod-and-reel tuna fishery, and there was one truck to carry the fish around, but the major efforts were only in the planning stage.

Robert Brandyberry, a former Unification Church member, testified at a recent trial that he had attended a high-level church meeting in September 1976 at which Moon made fishing a major topic of discussion. Notes taken during the session indicated plans for marine enterprises centered in key areas of the country: Boston, New York, New Orleans and Florida, Los Angeles and Seattle. “We need to have all connected businesses within our organization,” Brandyberry wrote. “No competition because we use our own members.With worldwide network we can control business. All young men must go all over the world fishing.”

An internal church document, written on October 30, 1976, and obtained soon after, cited projected sales of $600,000 for the following year and profits of $86,000 but warned of problems involving the use of aliens and the poor corporate image of Tong II, the original Moon-related fish business. The document, signed by A. Richard Arnold, “director of marketing services,” stated: “We are building no foundation for the huge harvest of fish that Father (Moon) is planning to help restore the world.” “We must ‘crack’ the wholesale markets or fail in our mission. Every day we waste with no results is failing our fundraisers in the streets. Tong II’s business reputation is very bad. A new corporation can start a clean operation and quickly achieve bank credits that would be impossible as a division of Tong II.”

The Threat Reports of these pronouncements and plans were widely circulated in the industry and prompted a fear among many that the church, using the free labor of its members, its tax-exempt status, etc., could indeed “crack” the markets as Arnold had suggested and “control business” as Moon demanded. And Moon and his affiliates certainly had the resources with which to try. Only three days after the Arnold report was drafted, a new corporation—International Oceanic Enterprise, Inc.—was formed in Virginia. The company, doing business as International Seafood, began operating out of a plant on the Norfolk waterfront, and the church money began to flow.

Records of the Unification Church International show disbursements of $250,000 to International Seafood on November 7, 1976; $250,000 to International Oceanic on November 13; $150,000 on April 12, 1977; and $250,003 on July 5—a total of $2,400,003 during a 15-month period ending in February 1978. The latter-day expenditures during that time undoubtedly helped to fund both a new venture in boatbuilding and the acquisition of more than 700 acres of waterfront property in Bayou La Batre, Alabama, in early 1978. This purchase by International Oceanic also signaled the formation of a few more corporations: U.S. Marine to handle shipbuilding; Master Marine, also involved in boatbuilding; and One-Up, a hold company. Total expenditures: approximately $5 million. Other acquisitions related to fishing included a small lobster company in Gloucester, Massachusetts, purchased for $300,000, which was $100,000 over its market value.

The church also purchased an old milk factory in San Leandro, California, for an unknown quantity of money, named it Golden Gate Seafoods and began describing it as the secondary processing arm of a budding operation in Alaska. The Alaska operation, a small yet highly efficient processing facility, cost more than $7 million, according to former International Seafood employees who have since disassociated themselves from the operation. The church has dabbled in other fisheries, too, working the waters off Florida with a small fleet of boats pursuing kingfish for sale in a small store in Miami. They’ve acquired another shipyard in Mississippi. Most recently, they descended on Gloucester, Massachusetts, with a fleet of thirty 25’ boats built by Master Marine for use in the bluefin tuna fishery. This brings to over 60 the number of vessels now licensed in this one fishery and more are on the way. Those seven trawlers that ad man Baker spoke about back in 1976 finally do exist, along with several other large vessels around the country.

There is another international trading company known as Uniworld, and a trading company in Japan— Shiawasa Shoji. UCI has done other business in fish under a variety of little-known names like Fast Brothers, Father’s Fish Co., Happiness Seafoods and the Ginseng Co. The total capital outlay just for the most visible holdings exceeds $15 million, making the affiliated companies one of the largest seafood catching, processing and marketing networks in the country.

Former church members have verified private businessmen’s fears that the workers in many of the operations, being church members, either go unpaid or return their money to the church as a donation after the formal exercise of paying the help is completed.

That many of the various companies received start-up and operating monies from the tax-free holdings of the Unification Church International is fact, well documented in church records.

With extensive holdings on every coast and involvement in many of the major fisheries—from shrimp, scallops and Atlantic bluefin to Alaska bottomfish—it seems obvious that the inroads and power Moon sought have been achieved. No other operation in the country has shown such phenomenal growth in such a short time. By all appearances it is successful, but the appearances belie the reality.

Losses The Norfolk operation was a dismal failure, a drain on the corporate coffers rather than a source of income. Its various leaders suffered from a lack of experience in the industry. Products were packed in an inappropriate manner, there were some troubles with short weights, and big plans fell through on a number of attempts to corner the market on a variety of exotic seafood ranging from shrimp and squid to sharkfins (see National Fisherman December 1980, page 34).

▲ Shark fins

▲ Commercial shark fin categories: primary and secondary sets

Numerous efforts were made to attract business by paying the boats more than the prevailing rates and selling to wholesalers at lower-than-competitive prices, but this tactic gained few inroads.

In 1978, company officials admitted candidly that International was losing money, probably at a rate in excess of $250,000 per year. In 1979, International’s competitors estimated even greater losses, and in May 1979, the operation ceased, to the surprise of few. What was surprising was that only six months after the closure, International returned to spend $1.6 million to purchase the plant and surrounding waterfront property it had previously rented.

Shipbuilding In Bayou La Batre, Alabama, and Moss Point, Mississippi, the shipbuilding operations continue at the same slow pace the rest of the shipbuilding industry has experienced for the past two years. Master Marine’s production in 1979 was around a dozen vessels, and a comparable production from the combined facilities in Alabama and Mississippi was reported last year. “They’re getting by,” says a rival builder in Bayou La Batre, “but they’re not making any killing; no one is right now.”

The scene is markedly different than it was in 1978, when International, Master Marine, et al swooped down on the town to buy up the shipbuilding facilities and the 700 acres of waterfront property while announcing plans for expanding the shipbuilding operations and establishing fish plants and a marine academy. The shipbuilding has stagnated, and the 700 acres lay idle. There are no plants, no academy, and Moon’s affiliates are known not for their fishing involvement but for a youth center they opened for the community’s teenagers.

Costly Delays The operation in Kodiak, Alaska, too, is less extensive than expected. The fish plant is now in operation and handling a variety of locally-caught seafood, but the fleet of company-owned, company-built boats to supply the plant hasn’t materialized. There are many vessels, sporting names like Sunrise and Green Hope, the products of labor at the Master Marine yards, but repeated advertisements throughout the industry have failed to attract enough experienced skippers to handle the vessels in the often-treacherous waters of the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea.

The plant, which has been operated by many of the same people who operated the Norfolk operations, also took three years to complete—double the original predictions—and costs rose accordingly, from an original estimate of $3 million to now over $7 million. “Perhaps it will yield profits some day, but there are some great costs to overcome,” says Mulk Prudent, an old hand in fish dealing who was hired to salvage the Norfolk operation and then worked selling product from the Alaska plant out of his office in Seattle.

In San Leandro, Golden Gate Seafoods also appears to have suffered because of the construction delays in Alaska, designated, as it was, to be the final processing arm of the Kodiak plant. The operation appears to be making some money handling the catches from vessels in the Oakland area, and costs have certainly been cut since the days of the late 1970s when Golden Gate, with no plant of its own, bought fish from the local boats, trucked it whole across the country to Norfolk for processing and then trucked it back to the West Coast for shipment to Japan. Golden Gate is also involved in a lawsuit in which a Moon-affiliated operation in Gloucester, Massachusetts, charges it did not pay for a shipment of squid that was packed and shipped last summer. “From the investigation we’ve done, we’d have to say they are no big money-maker,” says Anthony Bertolino, Gloucester attorney. He is trying to recover money allegedly lost by Capt. Joe and Sons, the Gloucester fish processor that actually packed the squid that is the focus of Moon affiliate A’s lawsuit against Moon affiliate B.

And, certainly, if there are profits, they are so modest that they could hardly be a source of funds with which to prop up the other operations. The most publicized and apparently successful operation is in Gloucester. There, International Seafood has a lobster company, while Uniworld trades in tuna, and the church itself has a fleet of 50 tuna boats, with Master Marine holding another 10. Cries that the “Moonies” are taking over the industry can be heard everywhere.

But, again, the appearances overshadow the reality. The profits, if there are any, are certainly not great and, most assuredly, aren’t the source of money for propping up Norfolk, Kodiak or the lesser holdings elsewhere. And none of Moon’s non-fishing operations in the country are known to be large enough to support the fishing enterprises, either.

Who Has the Money? The church itself could be the source, according to many. But Mose Durst, the president of the church, maintains that the reverse is true. Since the “Moonies” have downplayed begging and their flower and candle sales as a source of income, the businesses support the church, he says.

This seems doubtful, but anything is possible in the financial maze of the Unification Church, Unification Church International, International Oceanic, International Seafoods, One-Up, U.S. Marine Corporation, Master Marine, Fathers Fish, Fast Bros., [Ocean Enterprises of Alaska, Inc., International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc., Ocean Peace, Inc., Top Ocean, Inc.] etc., etc.

Where the money comes from remains a mystery.

____________________________________

A huge Moon Church scam in Japan is revealed

Moon extracted $500 million from Japanese female members

Moon church of Japan used members for profit, not religious purposes

Shark finning: The cruelest cuts

Moon owned Sushi Company, True World Foods, Linked to Whaling

The Dark Side of True World Foods

Sushi and Rev. Moon – Chicago Tribune

FDA cites Elk Grove True World Foods seafood plant for unsanitary conditions

Jack White and his crew of five in the ‘Green Hope’ drowned off Alaska

John Williams died in a tragic Ocean Church accident in 2003

Japanese Unification Church member froze to death

SEASPIRACY website

SEASPIRACY trailer (Netscape) Seaspiracy examines the global fishing industry, challenging notions of sustainable fishing and showing how human actions cause widespread environmental destruction.

#sharkfin soup #Sun Myung Moon #Ocean Church

2 notes · View notes

gretamclaughlin · 3 years

Text

Saving Ecosystems to Save Ourselves

I left off speaking about the decrease in biodiversity worldwide and efforts to reverse this trend, specifically the species and ecosystem approaches. The most recent content surrounds aquatic biodiversity loss as well as modern agriculture and issues with food security, which often relate to decreases in biodiversity. Industrialized farming methods to feed a growing population often harm the environment, and we must search for new ways to feed billions of people. As in many cases, human activity is damaging the earth, and we exploit resources in an unsustainable manner, affecting ourselves and other organisms.

Humans are degrading valuable aquatic habitats, which then harms marine and freshwater species. As humans continue to create coastal developments, pollute, and emit greenhouse gases, oceans’ conditions worsen. For example, through coral bleaching, the number of warm-water coral reefs, which are centers of biodiversity, is decreasing rapidly. Increases in ocean acidification, temperature, and overall pollution affect the ocean’s services and food webs. Perhaps most significantly, human activity is killing phytoplankton. This organism is not only an important food source for many species, but it also produces a significant percentage of the oxygen on earth and absorbs CO2, thus mitigating the effects of emissions. In addition, with growing food insecurity, some people are pointing to phytoplankton as an alternative food source (Moore-Ede 2017). Therefore, reducing the phytoplankton population might be even more detrimental to future generations than it was first thought to be; we are actively destroying our food. Although we may not see the impact of our actions at first, harming organisms like phytoplankton has major effects on ocean ecosystems, the biosphere, and our ability to live on earth in the future. It is essential to emphasize the consequences for humans if we destroy oceans to gain more support for action against climate degradation. This human-centered approach may cause more people to back environmental initiatives.

The film Albatross highlights the consequences of human activity regarding waste. As a result of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, many birds have ingested a lethal amount of plastic. The visuals are heartbreaking, and the filmmaker does an excellent job appealing to emotions and pointing out how devastating human actions are. Many parts appear dystopian. Watching films like these make viewers reflect on their role in such tragedies.

Overfishing is a significant issue, and humans are depleting the world’s fisheries through unsustainable exploitation. The rise of industrial fishing has dually increased the number of fish caught and the use of harmful equipment. For example, trawlers destroy habitats on the ocean floor, and nets kill a significant number of bycatch, sea turtles, and dolphins. I believe it is important to use these “cute” organisms to promote saving the oceans (species approach). More people are attracted to saving sea turtles and dolphins than just an ordinary fish. Therefore, if we encourage them to work to save their preferred organisms, the effects of legislation and grassroots efforts can also help less known/less liked organisms, thus helping entire ecosystems. Those trying to save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge used this tactic to emphasize the effect of drilling on polar bears to gain more support against exploiting the refuge.

In a previous blog post, I spoke about the rise of industrial fishing in Senegal, specifically the impact of foreign fishing boats. They depleted Senegal’s resources and escalated food insecurity. To make matters worse, most of the fish are being turned into fishmeal, so the Senegalese cannot even eat the fish taken from them. Efforts to expel foreign entities from their waters have not been very effective, and the Senegalese government is taking more aggressive measures, such as the implementation of highly trained combative forces, to curb this issue. Regardless, it will take a long time before fish populations return to previous levels.

The aquatic biodiversity situation is disheartening because international laws and treaties can only do so much. The high seas are largely unregulated, and treaties mostly rely on pure faith that other governments will do the right thing. Any strategies, like sanctions, to enforce these policies are unlikely to be employed when it comes to environmental laws. It makes me wonder if there is any hope for saving the world’s ecosystems. After all, it is a global effort to preserve biodiversity, and many nations frankly do not care enough to make real change.

Food insecurity is increasing, especially in developing nations, and environmental degradation intensifies the issue. As a result, many impoverished people cannot access food, which affects their health. People suffer from brain damage and illnesses due to malnutrition. The U.S. faces issues with food deserts, and the poor cannot access affordable, healthy food. People experience “overnutrition,” leading to obesity, diabetes, and other related illnesses. In the area surrounding Rose Hill, there are few grocery stores that stock inexpensive and fresh fruits and vegetables, and you are more likely to find a fast food restaurant than a healthy eatery. If you travel to the Upper West Side, you will find Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, and farmers markets galore because the area is wealthier. It is unfair because everyone should be afforded a healthy lifestyle. In the U.S. and globally, there is an issue of food justice, and people cannot access basic necessities because of the money they have.

As a result of the Green Revolution, food production has increased over the last century, which has been integral in sustaining the growing global population. Despite higher crop yields, the expansion of industrialized agriculture has hidden costs from environmental and health consequences. This “revolution” ushered in a period of dependence on genetically modified foods, chemicals, and technology, and it has resulted in high water usage and high outputs of emissions from energy usage, cultivation, and animal husbandry. As prices are driven down through government subsidies and technological advancements, more Americans eat meat than in the past. This has disastrous effects, and agriculture as a whole makes up a significant percentage of U.S. water use and emissions. Additionally, according to the Center for Health Journalism, the growth hormones and antibiotics prevalent in many American animal products have been linked to increasingly early puberty in girls (Rosenberg 2016). While many European countries have taken more precautionary approaches to food additives, the U.S. has decided to move forward with them (Germinal Organic 2018). This phenomenon brings about a complicated question: should we continue to modify food to feed the world? It seems like we have few other options to prevent mass hunger, despite potentially adverse health effects. At least, this is what companies tell us. In response to industrialized agriculture, there have been calls to lean on organic agriculture, which does not use synthetic pesticides, inorganic fertilizers, or genetically engineered seed varieties. Although industrialized agriculture may seem like a solution now, it appears that it will not be one long-term. We need to begin experimenting with other farming methods that do not degrade the environment to create a future for everyone on earth.

Immediate steps must be taken to prevent the widespread destruction of earth’s ecosystems. Although international treaties cannot be enforced on the same level as federal laws, they can be important in countries taking steps to prevent overfishing and aquatic degradation in general. Such policies cause nations to reflect on their actions and change how they view the environment. Citizens of participating countries also have standards to hold their government to, which is crucial for grassroots organizing. The expansion of marine protected areas through treaties, which have had significant benefits in promoting the growth of populations and biodiversity, is integral in creating focused approaches to preserving the ocean.

Regarding fishing, governments need to become more active in preventing exploitation, which will have future health and environmental benefits. Ending subsidies to commercial fishing companies will decrease exploitation. Governments can direct subsidies to sustainable fishing efforts or fishing subsidies can be removed as a whole. After all, I am unsure if there is truly sustainable fishing when it disrupts natural ecosystems. Governments also must intervene by setting fishing seasons, quotas for species, and standards for fishing equipment to prevent habitat loss and the deaths of organisms not meant to be caught. More people will have access to fishing by instituting more catch-share systems, and it will be less exploitative as well. Aquaculture also needs to be regulated, and fish farmers should reduce the amount of antibiotics and pesticides they use. People “voting with their wallets” will be important when it comes to this because it is difficult for the government to regulate foreign fish imports. Certainly, authorities should enforce these efforts, and governments should institute programs to train people to monitor fishing. After all, when Senegal introduced its restrictions, foreign boats ignored them because of the lack of law enforcement. Quasi-military forces and protocols might be necessary. If we do not save the environment, we do not save ourselves.

Governments must institute mandates and subsidies that promote sustainable farming practices. Many of these should lean on traditional methods, such as requiring farmers to plant polycultures, which will lessen the need for fertilizer and water and prevent all the crops from being wiped out by a single disease. Further efforts to prevent agrobiodiversity will also be important in diversifying and strengthening our food security. Additionally, promoting organic agriculture will benefit people’s health and the environment, and subsidizing this farming method will lower prices and enable people in poverty to access cleaner food. As mentioned in a previous blog post, the U.S. government’s current subsidizing of mainstream food has caused it to be more accessible than healthier options. This has created an unhealthy and overweight population. If grassroots organizations can gain support to reduce the prices of organic food, they will be more successful in petitioning federal and state governments to change how they use their money. People can also pressure companies to provide healthier options; if it seems like a good economic opportunity, corporations will listen to customers.

Soil conservation is also important, and organic fertilizers and standards for agroforestry, terracing, strip-cropping, and more will prevent soil erosion and maintain soil fertility. However, farmers are unlikely to implement these methods on their own because they can seem costly at first. Why would one reduce the crops they grow for the soil? There must be free, local programs run by local governments and grassroots organizations that educate farmers on the importance of soil fertility and sustainability efforts. These programs should highlight the long-term benefits of soil conservation efforts and how current farming practices will ultimately lead to economic loss.

Urban gardens, which grassroots organizations often implement, can help with food deserts and promote biophilia. In Newark, NJ, the Greater Newark Conservancy runs education programs on agriculture and provides inexpensive plots for people to grow food (Greater Newark Conservancy, n.d.). These programs get people outside and better their health in the process by providing organic food. In addition, connecting people with nature causes them to care more for the environment, and urban gardening programs will generate greater support for green causes, which helps further the goals of grassroots organizations in communities and in the government.

As I often speak about, Fordham must divest from Aramark, which uses unsustainable practices to get its food. This is something that the Climate Impact Initiative is actively working on. Most Aramark food is not fresh and must be stored in freezers for long periods, wasting energy. In addition, although Aramark claims to use local food, more stringent standards need to be placed to make more of the food come from closer by and support local, organic farms, which helps with the environmental cost of food transportation and cultivation. Fordham should also lean on its environmental history to expand its gardens and increase the number of fresh fruits and vegetables available. These can be sold to students, staff, and the community, and profits can be reinvested in the garden itself.

People must take personal responsibility for their consumption of foods and attempt to eat vegetarian more often or completely switch their diets to vegetarianism. Meat consumption is entirely unsustainable, and if more people stop eating meat, we can save animals’ lives and the environment. I recently became a vegetarian, and although it has been difficult, it gets easier with time. More than anything, I am angry that I did not begin eating like this earlier because I have always had the means to do so. This is another aspect of why we need to have healthier, fresh food available to impoverished people—they will be able to eat vegetarian too.

We must all take accountability for the consequences of our actions on earth’s ecosystems. Current agricultural and fishing practices have made eating completely unsustainable, and many of our activities often have a cascade effect on food webs. We must change how we obtain food now in order to save the human race’s ability to live in the future.

Word Count: 2147

Question: How can we institute full-cost pricing in agriculture while ensuring that those who are less well-off can afford healthy food?

Diagrams:

What it takes to make a quarter-pound hamburger

U.S. meat consumption per person in pounds

Much of New York City lacks access to healthy food

The disgusting state of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch

Works Cited:

Moore Ede, Piers. 2017. “Could Marine Phytoplankton Be The Future Of Human Nutrition?” Published April 20, 2017. https://www.spiritofchange.org/could-marine-phytoplankton-be-the-future-of-human-nutrition/.

Rosenberg, Martha. 2016. “Precocious puberty in girls is increasing and alarming.” Published June 20, 2016. https://centerforhealthjournalism.org/2016/06/22/precocious-puberty-girls-increasing-and-alarming.

Germinal Organic. 2018. “EU Versus US: A Closer Look at Food Standards.” Published February 20, 2018. http://www.germinalorganic.com/2018/02/eu-versus-us-a-closer-look-at-food-standards/.

Greater Newark Conservancy. n.d. “Join Plot It Fresh.” Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.citybloom.org/programs/urban-agriculture/plot-it-fresh/registration.html.

#agriculture #food justice #environment #nyc #brooklyn #environmentalism #fordham

3 notes · View notes

theecoreport · 7 years

Text

Delta Stewardship Council Motion To Adopt Twin Tunnels

The ECOreport reposts news from California’s threatened Bay Delta area, Delta Stewardship Council Motion To Adopt Twin Tunnels

Originally Published by the Fish Sniffer & Daily KOS

By Dan Bacher

The Delta Stewardship Council (DSC) on Thursday, March 23 will consider a controversial motion to amend the Delta Plan to automatically accept new conveyance (the Delta Tunnels) into their master plan for…

View On WordPress

#AquAlliance #Bob Wright #California #California Sportfishing Protection Alliance #California Water Impact Network #Center for Biological Diversity #Environmental Justice Coalition for Water #Environmental Water Caucus #Friends of the River #Golden Gate Salmon Association #National Marine Fisheries Service #Planning and Conservation League #Restore the Delta #Sierra Club California

1 note · View note

fatehbaz · 4 years

Text

In October 2010, when calls to “save” the imperiled Atlantic bluefin tuna reached fever pitch in the news media, the three commissioners from the U.S. delegation to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) convened their Advisory Committee. Some two-dozen appointees joined more than thirty government officials in a banquet hall at the Silver Springs Hilton [...]. The group included tuna wholesalers, tuna canners, tuna lobbyists, commercial fishers, recreational fishers, trade negotiators, insurance agents, marina owners, bait-and-tackle shopkeepers [...] and policy experts from the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources, the U.S. Department of State [...]. Although this battery of experts meets every fall and spring, somehow the snaking hallways leading to the windowless room felt more claustrophobic than usual. The air was staler, the fluorescent light more artificial, the modular wall panels more intractable [...]. In principle, the period for public comment was supposed to act as a check on domestic administrative law [...]. In practice, this time felt like a formality [...] not unlike a public-service message on radio or television broadcast in the wee hours: necessary by law, short, off key, incongruous with paid programming. “We can speak ‘offline’“ was a commonly repeated phrase indicating that discussion was meant for closed doors.

Amid the reports and debates, the jokes and jabs, the rehearsed scripts ... the committee’s lead scientist offered his usual roundup of new research about the commercial fish under ICCAT’s regulatory control. His presentation included a series of [...] slides showing the tagging results of four lone Atlantic bluefin tuna caught on a pelagic longline vessel as by-catch from another fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. In May 2010, the crew tagged these four fish with devices [...]. By August 2010 -- over the course of only ninety days -- four tagged bluefin tunas swam from the Gulf of Mexico down to Cuba, along the eastern Floridian coast, past the Carolinas, by New England, and up to the Gulf of Saint Lawrence in the Canadian Maritimes. One dove to depths in the Gulf of Mexico where the water column approached zero degrees Celsius. [...] The tagging results on-screen looked like Orion’s Belt or some other constellation from outer space linking lines and dots to form a picture holding the human imagination in a trance, as these representations have done for millennia.

[T]his moment was the only one when to me the bluefin felt alive in ICCAT’s predatory regime of value, her majesty restored, no longer a servant of capital as a biological asset worth her weight in gold. [...] Once ninety days expired from the moment of catch and release, the tag popped up and floated to the ocean surface. What happened to the bluefin thereafter we do not know. Perhaps one of them journeyed right past a fisher in that tired room, unbeknownst to him, or jetted across the Atlantic to find kin in the Mediterranean Sea, disappearing like a phantom in a regulatory void.

A moment later, the marvel the bluefin inspired among the experts evaporated. Poof. Gone. There was an agenda to follow, a market to secure, a nation to imagine, a state to administer, an empire to amplify. To carry on the work of marine conservation relative to economic growth, ICCAT delegates transformed a fish revered for millennia into just another commodity for sale [...]. To legally constitute and regularize global markets for commodity empires, ICCAT delegates must learn to disentangle and alienate themselves from the vibrant brilliance of the bluefin -- of which they were fully aware -- allowing them to reduce her life to [...] a “stock.” The process by which imperial powers transformed the bluefin into property [...].

ICCAT member states regulate their imperial ambitions by distributing risk in a futures market for prized commercial-fish. [...] Biopower resides not only in legal ends or doctrine but in means or process [...], a seemingly mundane regulatory apparatus contributed to producing the fish slaughter after World War II. [...] ICCAT meetings [characterized] as ritualized performances operating in the seam of legal outcomes, as liminal as any other ceremonial event. [...]

[There was a] moment in the early 1980s when nation-states adopted for the first time ever export quotas for bluefin tuna. [...] Unlike commodities such as copper, steel, and soy, Atlantic bluefin tuna travels far and wide across maritime borders at a pace and speed technocrats cannot foresee or limit in the wild. [...] These [coastal sovereignty extensions through exclusive economic zones] were codified under the revised UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982. Many nation-states now claimed proprietary rights to fish, oil, gas, and wind within two hundred nautical miles of shore -- expanded from a measly twelve. Quotas for Atlantic bluefin tuna allowed nation-states to demarcate who owned what [...], part of an extractive economy now scaled globally [...]. Similar to flagged vessels traversing sea lanes, the bluefin has become a “vector of law,” affirming that very mobile biological assets could be enclosed for well-financed member states claiming a share of the tuna pie through the ICCAT apparatus. A handful of people from a handful of powerful member states made a handful of decisions to set new terms for the global commodities trade. It was their job.

---

Jennifer E. Telesca. Red Gold: The Managed Extinction of the Giant Bluefin Tuna. 2020.

15 notes · View notes

sciencespies · 3 years

Text

Cultivated seaweed can soak up excess nutrients plaguing human health and marine life

https://sciencespies.com/environment/cultivated-seaweed-can-soak-up-excess-nutrients-plaguing-human-health-and-marine-life/

Cultivated seaweed can soak up excess nutrients plaguing human health and marine life

It’s easy to think that more nutrients — the stuff life needs to grow and thrive — would foster more vibrant ecosystems. Yet nutrient pollution has in fact wrought havoc on marine systems, contributing to harmful algae blooms, worse water quality and oxygen-poor dead zones.

A team of researchers from UC Santa Barbara has proposed a novel strategy for reducing large amounts of nutrients — specifically nitrogen and phosphorus — after they have already been released into the environment. In a study appearing in the journal Marine Policy, the authors contend that seaweed’s incredible ability to draw nutrients from the water could provide an efficient and cost-effective solution. Looking at the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, the team identified over 63,000 square kilometers suitable for seaweed aquaculture.

“A key goal of conservation ecology is to understand and maintain the natural balance of ecosystems, because human activity tends to tip things out of balance,” said co-author Darcy Bradley, co-director of the Ocean and Fisheries Program at the university’s Environmental Markets Lab. Activities on land, like industrial-scale farming, send lots of nutrients into waterways where they accumulate and flow into the ocean in greater quantities than they naturally would.

Opportunistic algae and microbes take advantage of the glut of nutrients, which fuel massive blooms. This growth can have all kinds of consequences, from producing biotoxins to smothering habitats in virtual monocultures. And while these algae produce oxygen when they’re alive, they die so suddenly and in such volume that their rapid decomposition consumes all the available oxygen in the water, transforming huge swaths of the ocean into so-called “dead zones.”

Cultivated seaweed could draw down available nutrients, the authors claim, limiting the resources for unchecked growth of nuisance algae and microbes. Seaweeds also produce oxygen, which could alleviate the development of hypoxic dead zones.

The authors analyzed data from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, which they say exemplifies the challenges associated with nutrient pollution. More than 800 watersheds across 32 states deliver nutrients to the Gulf, which has led to a growing low-oxygen dead zone. In 2019, this dead zone stretched just over 18,000 square kilometers, slightly smaller than the area of New Jersey.

Cortez grunt fish swim beneath a “red tide” algae bloom near the Bat Islands in Costa Rica’s Santa Rosa National Park. Cortez grunt fish swim beneath a “red tide” algae bloom near the Bat Islands in Costa Rica’s Santa Rosa National Park. Blooms like these can release biotoxins and create oxygen-poor dead zones in the ocean.

Using open-source oceanographic and human-use data, the team identified areas of the gulf suitable for seaweed cultivation. They found roughly 9% of the United States’ exclusive economic zone in the gulf could support seaweed aquaculture, particularly off the west coast of Florida.

“Cultivating seaweed in less than 1% of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico could potentially reach the country’s pollution reduction goals that, for decades, have been difficult to achieve,” said lead author Phoebe Racine, a Ph.D. candidate at UCSB’s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management.

“Dealing with nutrient pollution is difficult and expensive,” Bradley added. The U.S. alone spends more than $27 billion every year on wastewater treatment.

Many regions employ water quality trading programs to manage this issue. In these cap-and-trade systems regulators set a limit on the amount of a pollutant that can be released, and then entities trade credits in a market. Water quality trading programs exist all over the U.S., though they are often small, bespoke and can be ephemeral. That said, they show a lot of promise and, according to Racine, have bipartisan support.

Seaweed aquaculture would fit nicely within these initiatives. “Depending on farming costs and efficiency, seaweed aquaculture could be financed by water quality trading markets for anywhere between $2 and $70 per kilogram of nitrogen removed,” Racine said, “which is within range of observed credit prices in existing markets.”

What’s more, the researchers note that demand is rising for seaweed in food and industry sectors. Potential products include biofuel, fertilizer and food, depending on the water quality, Racine said. This means that, unlike many remediation strategies, seaweed aquaculture could pay for itself or even generate revenue.

And the time seems ripe for the authors’ proposal. “The U.S. has traditionally had a lot of barriers to getting aquaculture in the ocean,” Bradley explained. “But there is mounting political support in the form of drafted bills and a signed executive order that could catalyze the expansion of the U.S. aquaculture industry.”

This study is the first of several to come out of the Seaweed Working Group, an interdisciplinary group of researchers looking to understand and chart the potential of seaweed aquaculture’s benefits to society. They are currently investigating a range of other ecosystem services that seaweed cultivation could provide, such as benefits to surrounding fisheries and carbon capture. The researchers are also working on a paper that explores nitrogen and phosphorous removal at the national level with fine-scale scale analysis modeling nutrient removal from native seaweeds off the coast of Florida.

As long as humans continue adding nutrients to the environment, nature will find ways to use them. By deliberately cultivating seaweeds, we can grow algae that we know are benign, helpful, or even potentially useful, rather than the opportunistic algae that currently draw upon these excess nutrients.

#Environment

1 note · View note